Well, after doing all these non-squishy 1st and 2nd year pre-reqs for engineering, I'm starting to wonder if my PhD might do better in a more squishy role, since I'm better at taking tech concepts and translating them into human speak. The major question is, since both squishy and non-squishy are Doctor of Philosophy, should I resist the inevitable drift to the squishy side? Ecology, environment, energy policy are things I grok, and both the long term implications and short term changes that are most effective, a set of unique skills that few possess, and how to translate that into rural speak too.

So, what do you think? Fill up my 3rd and 4th year slots with squishy stuff and push on through? Will this lead me to (gasp) having to work in cities, or can I find a way to work in villages and towns and skype in for research meetings when there's 20 meters of snow in the pass and it ain't going to be cleared for 10 days, so relax, eh?

Object lesson. When working in a professional job, don't take two hard courses at the same time. In getting ready for a PhD in Civil and Environmental Engineering (already have a post-grad DRM), have been taking engineering core courses, and this semester I took Environmental Science 160 and Physics 222. Got a 3.8 in ENVS and a 1.0 in PHYS. Sigh.

Have heard a lot of people have problems with this class, so am just going to retake it, NOT take the 2 3.5 hour classes a week that exhaust me and leave me no time to do homework before it's due, NOT do it without a new laptop, and take the version that is 4-5 classes a week during the day, so that I'm not exhausted.

So, as part of my PhD C&EE studies into distributed multi-modal alternative energy systems, using alternative energy power sources to mix and develop stable non-fossil-fuel entire energy networks, I decided I should probably put my money where my mouth is, at least personally.

Over the last year have been slowly replacing all my household lights (which were about 60 pct CFL 30 pct incandescent 10 pct halogen) with 100 pct LED lights. The modern ones are way brighter. And knowing my entire bathroom lighting uses 12 watts and my kitchen uses 40 watts (I have a lot of lights) is kind of cool. So now the amount of lights I have on is never more than 100 watts in the whole house (and that's for parties). Bought all the lights on sales at Fred Meyer and Costco, so they cost like $2 to $4 instead of $12 or $16.

Also replaced the 42 inch HDTV that blew (70 watts) with a new 32 inch HDTV that uses 7 watts. Had already done the computer devices, and now unplug the modems and other vampire devices.

Bought 4 solar units (basically, a solar panel, but they are part of large building arrays at Woodland Park Zoo, Seattle Aquarium, and a low income housing project, so they cost $300 total to buy instead of $3000 if you install on your property due to inspection, electric upgrades, permits and labor - cheaper in large 100-400 solar panel bulk as part of a new project, and my townhouse is north facing).

Replaced my 1999 fridge, washer, dryer with new energy efficient (Homburg? made in Germany, and Fisher for the fridge) ones. Surprised at how much that saved.

End result? Think I spent at most $6000 total for everything. But my current electric bill (and only just installed a bunch of this, and only got partial solar credit) is $6 instead of $104 (not counting solar units bought) on last bill.

I keep seeing people, mostly out of fear of change, deep in climate denial.

But it doesn't have to be that way.

Is it hard to become energy efficient and reduce emissions while growing the GDP at twice the national rate? Sure. But we in the West have already done that. Just ask WA OR ID CA NV.

How? It's pretty simple. End fossil fuel subsidies. Not just the obvious ones, but end all the grandfather exemptions that allow old power plants to keep operating when they should either be retrofitted or retired.

Require 20-50 percent of all new energy built in a state to be non-fossil-fuel renewables. Currently, the cheapest are solar and wind. But look at a mix of energy, even for the West. It shows solar a small fraction compared to wind.

Why? Because we don't require solar as part of new building construction. Wait, Will, are you saying we have to put solar panels on every building? No. I'm saying use the most cost effective solar there is. Passive solar. Triple pane windows, curtains or blinds or polarized screens so you don't use energy cooling in the summer, but use solar in the day in the winter (and then close blinds). Using LED lights that turn off after an hour of no motion on a floor.

But no solar panels? No. Build new construction so it can support the weight of solar panels where it makes sense (south facing walls, or in valleys east or west walls) and be easily maintained. Cut regulations that drive solar panel costs to $7000 per panel (residential installation) so that it runs $300 per panel on NEW construction, so that the grid is designed to handle it. Make an earthquake interrupt switch so the solar kicks in to power critical systems if the grid drops for more than an hour. Wire in electric cars for storage.

After a whole bunch of Somalis decided to pile on me for actually answering a series of questions, I can see why they have few friends.

Seriously, Somalia has been starving since I was a baby, and the US and Russia dropped mil equipment in Africa that destabilized the region, and now China and Saudi Arabia are going to ensure nothing good ever happens there.

So, while I can't admit what I may or may not have done in detail myself, one of the most interesting things at Christmas was finding out my dad was indeed part of the precursor to the NSA, confirming what my mom had thought.